In the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are not eligible for stem cell transplant or are transplant-deferred, adding subcutaneous daratumumab to bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) significantly improves minimal residual disease (MRD) outcomes among patients, the first results from the phase 3 CEPHEUS trial showed.

“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.

“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”

For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.

However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.

For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).

In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.

The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.

Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.

The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).

Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).

A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.

A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).

There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.

Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.

The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.

In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.

Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.

Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.

“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”

Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.

“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.

“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”

He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”

Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”

“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.

“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are not eligible for stem cell transplant or are transplant-deferred, adding subcutaneous daratumumab to bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) significantly improves minimal residual disease (MRD) outcomes among patients, the first results from the phase 3 CEPHEUS trial showed.

“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.

“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”

For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.

However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.

For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).

In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.

The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.

Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.

The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).

Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).

A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.

A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).

There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.

Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.

The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.

In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.

Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.

Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.

“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”

Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.

“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.

“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”

He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”

Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”

“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.

“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are not eligible for stem cell transplant or are transplant-deferred, adding subcutaneous daratumumab to bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) significantly improves minimal residual disease (MRD) outcomes among patients, the first results from the phase 3 CEPHEUS trial showed.

“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.

“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”

For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.

However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.

For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).

In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.

The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.

Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.

The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).

Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).

A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.

A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).

There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.

Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.

The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.

In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.

Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.

Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.

“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”

Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.

“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.

“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”

He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”

Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”

“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.

“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly issued guidelines for cancer screening in patients with dermatomyositis had 100% sensitivity in a single institution’s cohort, though most of the cancers found would have been detected with standard cancer screenings recommended for the general population, according to a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology.

“These early results emphasize the continued need to refine risk assessment and cancer screening for patients with dermatomyositis while balancing resource use and outcomes,” concluded Caroline J. Stone and her colleagues at the Department of Dermatology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

dermatology.cdlib.org/CC BY-SA 3.0/wikimedia

Patients with dermatomyositis have approximately a 4.7 times greater risk for cancer than those without it, according to a 2016 meta-analysis. Despite the well-established link between cancer and dermatomyositis, cancer in people with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies is commonly diagnosed at a later stage and is the leading cause of death in people with these conditions.
 

Guidelines First Presented in 2022 and Published in 2023

A wide variability in screening practices eventually led the International Myositis Assessment & Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) to present the first evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines for cancer screening of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, including those with dermatomyositis, at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology and publish them in 2023 in Nature Reviews Rheumatology. The guidelines advise low-risk patients to undergo basic cancer screening with routine blood and urine studies, liver function tests, plain chest radiography, and age- and sex-appropriate cancer screening.

Intermediate- and high-risk patients are recommended to undergo enhanced screening that can include mammography, Pap tests, endoscopy/colonoscopy, pelvic and transvaginal ultrasonography, prostate-specific antigen or cancer antigen 125 blood tests, fecal occult blood tests, and CT of the neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis.

But because the guidelines are new, little evidence exists regarding their validation in real-world cohorts. Researchers, therefore, assessed the IMACS guidelines in 370 patients, aged 18-80 years, who visited the University of Pennsylvania rheumatology-dermatology specialty clinic between July 2008 and January 2024. All participants had dermatomyositis and at least 3 years of follow-up and were an average 48 years old. The vast majority were women (87%) and White participants (89%).

Most (68.6%) had myositis-specific autoantibody test results, one of the factors included in the guidelines for determining whether the patient should be classified as low, intermediate, or high risk. Other factors for risk stratification included myositis subtype, age at disease onset, and clinical features. About half (49.2%) had classic dermatomyositis, 42.4% had amyopathic dermatomyositis, 3.8% had juvenile dermatomyositis, 3.2% had hypomyopathic dermatomyositis, 0.8% had antisynthetase syndrome, and 0.5% had immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy.

Just over half the patients (54%) were classified as high risk, while 37.3% were classified as intermediate risk and 8.9% as low risk using the guidelines. Among the 18 patients (4.9%) with paraneoplastic dermatomyositis, 15 were classified as high risk and 3 as intermediate risk.

Of the patients diagnosed with cancer, 55% of cases were diagnosed about a year before their dermatomyositis diagnosis. In three patients, symptoms “suggestive of cancer at the time of dermatomyositis diagnosis, including lymphadenopathy and unexplained weight loss,” led to diagnostic testing that found an underlying cancer.

In the eight patients diagnosed with cancer after their dermatomyositis diagnosis, 75% of the cancers were identified during the first year of follow-up and 25% in the second year. Five were identified based on basic cancer screening and three on enhanced screening.

A total of 11 patients (3%) developed intravenous contrast allergies, and no other adverse events were reported to be associated with cancer screening, but the study was not designed to capture other types of adverse screening effects, such as cost, quality of life, or risk from radiation exposure.

The most common neoplasm identified was breast cancer, found in nine (50%) of the patients using mammography. Two patients had lung cancer identified with chest radiography and two had ovarian cancer identified with abdominal radiography and CT. The remaining five patients included one each with bladder cancer, papillary thyroid cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and adenocarcinoma with unknown primary.

The sensitivity of the guidelines in detecting cancer related to dermatomyositis was 100%, though the authors noted that the “IMACS risk-stratification scheme may overestimate cancer risk and encourage enhanced screening protocols of unclear benefit.” Most of the cancers found after dermatomyositis diagnosis were detected with routine age- and sex-related screening that already falls under basic cancer screening recommendations for the general population. Nonetheless, 90% of the participants fell into the intermediate- and high-risk groups, warranting a more comprehensive and costly enhanced screening protocol.
 

Will the Guidelines Lead to Overscreening? 

The 4.9% cancer prevalence is considerably lower than the typical 15%-25% prevalence among patients with dermatomyositis, but the findings, regardless, suggest the guidelines will lead to overscreening, wrote Andrea D. Maderal, MD, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, and Alisa Femia, MD, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, in an accompanying editorial. Given that the median age in patients with cancer in the study was 58 years — 18 years older than the age cutoff for high-risk criteria — one way to refine the guidelines may be to increase the age for the high-risk category, they suggested.

“While these guidelines led to many ultimately unnecessary screening tests based on currently recommended designations of intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, these guidelines reflect a more conservative approach to screening than was previously performed,” Dr. Maderal and Dr. Femia wrote.

Jeff Gehlhausen, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of dermatology at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he is not concerned about overscreening in patients, however, and is “very enthusiastic” about the findings.

“Patients are very anxious for good reason,” given the typical cancer prevalence of 25% in this population, he said in an interview. “I think therein lies the challenge — with that risk, what is ‘enough’ screening?” Yet this “incredibly impressive” study “provides real insights into the applicability of the IMACS screenings to our dermatomyositis management,” including relevance to his own patients. “Their findings are instructive for how to better evaluate these patients in a more mindful fashion,” he said, and they are particularly welcome, given how widely variable practice has historically been before the guidelines were issued.

“This question has been an outstanding one for decades, and nearly every doctor has a different answer,” Dr. Gehlhausen said. “The introduction of the guidelines alone are now much more actionable with this study, and that’s why it’s such an important one for our community.”

Benedict Wu, DO, PhD, director of Inpatient Dermatology and an assistant professor at Montefiore Einstein and a member of the Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center in New York City, similarly regarded the findings as reassuring, though he was surprised at the low prevalence of cancer in the patients.

“The most reassuring finding was that the detection of most malignancies was possible by using routine age- and sex-related screening combined with basic cancer screening,” Wu said in an interview. “Basic cancer screening can reduce costs while keeping patients safe.”

He also found it reassuring that all the paraneoplastic dermatomyositis was in intermediate- or high-risk patients, and while he does not see the IMACS guidelines as overestimating cancer risk, he does think “the risk stratification and recommended screening tests could be revised to be less ‘aggressive.’ ” 

The overall low rate of cancer in the group “calls into question the need for stringent and annual cancer screening,” he said. “In this large cohort of patients, the fact that malignancy was detected within 2 years of dermatomyositis diagnosis will help guide us with long-term screening recommendations.”

Despite the study’s small size and single-center design, the demographics of the patients nearly represents exactly what is found in the United States more broadly, Wu noted. He also drew attention to how many patients lacked the myositis antibody profile performed, and he agreed with the authors that more extensive and prospective studies need to be conducted. He also emphasized the need to keep in mind that “the primary goal of dermatomyositis management should focus on controlling/reducing the disease burden.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Maderal reported personal fees from argenx. No disclosures were noted for Dr. Gehlhausen and Dr. Wu.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly issued guidelines for cancer screening in patients with dermatomyositis had 100% sensitivity in a single institution’s cohort, though most of the cancers found would have been detected with standard cancer screenings recommended for the general population, according to a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology.

“These early results emphasize the continued need to refine risk assessment and cancer screening for patients with dermatomyositis while balancing resource use and outcomes,” concluded Caroline J. Stone and her colleagues at the Department of Dermatology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

dermatology.cdlib.org/CC BY-SA 3.0/wikimedia

Patients with dermatomyositis have approximately a 4.7 times greater risk for cancer than those without it, according to a 2016 meta-analysis. Despite the well-established link between cancer and dermatomyositis, cancer in people with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies is commonly diagnosed at a later stage and is the leading cause of death in people with these conditions.
 

Guidelines First Presented in 2022 and Published in 2023

A wide variability in screening practices eventually led the International Myositis Assessment & Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) to present the first evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines for cancer screening of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, including those with dermatomyositis, at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology and publish them in 2023 in Nature Reviews Rheumatology. The guidelines advise low-risk patients to undergo basic cancer screening with routine blood and urine studies, liver function tests, plain chest radiography, and age- and sex-appropriate cancer screening.

Intermediate- and high-risk patients are recommended to undergo enhanced screening that can include mammography, Pap tests, endoscopy/colonoscopy, pelvic and transvaginal ultrasonography, prostate-specific antigen or cancer antigen 125 blood tests, fecal occult blood tests, and CT of the neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis.

But because the guidelines are new, little evidence exists regarding their validation in real-world cohorts. Researchers, therefore, assessed the IMACS guidelines in 370 patients, aged 18-80 years, who visited the University of Pennsylvania rheumatology-dermatology specialty clinic between July 2008 and January 2024. All participants had dermatomyositis and at least 3 years of follow-up and were an average 48 years old. The vast majority were women (87%) and White participants (89%).

Most (68.6%) had myositis-specific autoantibody test results, one of the factors included in the guidelines for determining whether the patient should be classified as low, intermediate, or high risk. Other factors for risk stratification included myositis subtype, age at disease onset, and clinical features. About half (49.2%) had classic dermatomyositis, 42.4% had amyopathic dermatomyositis, 3.8% had juvenile dermatomyositis, 3.2% had hypomyopathic dermatomyositis, 0.8% had antisynthetase syndrome, and 0.5% had immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy.

Just over half the patients (54%) were classified as high risk, while 37.3% were classified as intermediate risk and 8.9% as low risk using the guidelines. Among the 18 patients (4.9%) with paraneoplastic dermatomyositis, 15 were classified as high risk and 3 as intermediate risk.

Of the patients diagnosed with cancer, 55% of cases were diagnosed about a year before their dermatomyositis diagnosis. In three patients, symptoms “suggestive of cancer at the time of dermatomyositis diagnosis, including lymphadenopathy and unexplained weight loss,” led to diagnostic testing that found an underlying cancer.

In the eight patients diagnosed with cancer after their dermatomyositis diagnosis, 75% of the cancers were identified during the first year of follow-up and 25% in the second year. Five were identified based on basic cancer screening and three on enhanced screening.

A total of 11 patients (3%) developed intravenous contrast allergies, and no other adverse events were reported to be associated with cancer screening, but the study was not designed to capture other types of adverse screening effects, such as cost, quality of life, or risk from radiation exposure.

The most common neoplasm identified was breast cancer, found in nine (50%) of the patients using mammography. Two patients had lung cancer identified with chest radiography and two had ovarian cancer identified with abdominal radiography and CT. The remaining five patients included one each with bladder cancer, papillary thyroid cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and adenocarcinoma with unknown primary.

The sensitivity of the guidelines in detecting cancer related to dermatomyositis was 100%, though the authors noted that the “IMACS risk-stratification scheme may overestimate cancer risk and encourage enhanced screening protocols of unclear benefit.” Most of the cancers found after dermatomyositis diagnosis were detected with routine age- and sex-related screening that already falls under basic cancer screening recommendations for the general population. Nonetheless, 90% of the participants fell into the intermediate- and high-risk groups, warranting a more comprehensive and costly enhanced screening protocol.
 

Will the Guidelines Lead to Overscreening? 

The 4.9% cancer prevalence is considerably lower than the typical 15%-25% prevalence among patients with dermatomyositis, but the findings, regardless, suggest the guidelines will lead to overscreening, wrote Andrea D. Maderal, MD, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, and Alisa Femia, MD, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, in an accompanying editorial. Given that the median age in patients with cancer in the study was 58 years — 18 years older than the age cutoff for high-risk criteria — one way to refine the guidelines may be to increase the age for the high-risk category, they suggested.

“While these guidelines led to many ultimately unnecessary screening tests based on currently recommended designations of intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, these guidelines reflect a more conservative approach to screening than was previously performed,” Dr. Maderal and Dr. Femia wrote.

Jeff Gehlhausen, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of dermatology at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he is not concerned about overscreening in patients, however, and is “very enthusiastic” about the findings.

“Patients are very anxious for good reason,” given the typical cancer prevalence of 25% in this population, he said in an interview. “I think therein lies the challenge — with that risk, what is ‘enough’ screening?” Yet this “incredibly impressive” study “provides real insights into the applicability of the IMACS screenings to our dermatomyositis management,” including relevance to his own patients. “Their findings are instructive for how to better evaluate these patients in a more mindful fashion,” he said, and they are particularly welcome, given how widely variable practice has historically been before the guidelines were issued.

“This question has been an outstanding one for decades, and nearly every doctor has a different answer,” Dr. Gehlhausen said. “The introduction of the guidelines alone are now much more actionable with this study, and that’s why it’s such an important one for our community.”

Benedict Wu, DO, PhD, director of Inpatient Dermatology and an assistant professor at Montefiore Einstein and a member of the Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center in New York City, similarly regarded the findings as reassuring, though he was surprised at the low prevalence of cancer in the patients.

“The most reassuring finding was that the detection of most malignancies was possible by using routine age- and sex-related screening combined with basic cancer screening,” Wu said in an interview. “Basic cancer screening can reduce costs while keeping patients safe.”

He also found it reassuring that all the paraneoplastic dermatomyositis was in intermediate- or high-risk patients, and while he does not see the IMACS guidelines as overestimating cancer risk, he does think “the risk stratification and recommended screening tests could be revised to be less ‘aggressive.’ ” 

The overall low rate of cancer in the group “calls into question the need for stringent and annual cancer screening,” he said. “In this large cohort of patients, the fact that malignancy was detected within 2 years of dermatomyositis diagnosis will help guide us with long-term screening recommendations.”

Despite the study’s small size and single-center design, the demographics of the patients nearly represents exactly what is found in the United States more broadly, Wu noted. He also drew attention to how many patients lacked the myositis antibody profile performed, and he agreed with the authors that more extensive and prospective studies need to be conducted. He also emphasized the need to keep in mind that “the primary goal of dermatomyositis management should focus on controlling/reducing the disease burden.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Maderal reported personal fees from argenx. No disclosures were noted for Dr. Gehlhausen and Dr. Wu.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly issued guidelines for cancer screening in patients with dermatomyositis had 100% sensitivity in a single institution’s cohort, though most of the cancers found would have been detected with standard cancer screenings recommended for the general population, according to a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology.

“These early results emphasize the continued need to refine risk assessment and cancer screening for patients with dermatomyositis while balancing resource use and outcomes,” concluded Caroline J. Stone and her colleagues at the Department of Dermatology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

dermatology.cdlib.org/CC BY-SA 3.0/wikimedia

Patients with dermatomyositis have approximately a 4.7 times greater risk for cancer than those without it, according to a 2016 meta-analysis. Despite the well-established link between cancer and dermatomyositis, cancer in people with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies is commonly diagnosed at a later stage and is the leading cause of death in people with these conditions.
 

Guidelines First Presented in 2022 and Published in 2023

A wide variability in screening practices eventually led the International Myositis Assessment & Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) to present the first evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines for cancer screening of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, including those with dermatomyositis, at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology and publish them in 2023 in Nature Reviews Rheumatology. The guidelines advise low-risk patients to undergo basic cancer screening with routine blood and urine studies, liver function tests, plain chest radiography, and age- and sex-appropriate cancer screening.

Intermediate- and high-risk patients are recommended to undergo enhanced screening that can include mammography, Pap tests, endoscopy/colonoscopy, pelvic and transvaginal ultrasonography, prostate-specific antigen or cancer antigen 125 blood tests, fecal occult blood tests, and CT of the neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis.

But because the guidelines are new, little evidence exists regarding their validation in real-world cohorts. Researchers, therefore, assessed the IMACS guidelines in 370 patients, aged 18-80 years, who visited the University of Pennsylvania rheumatology-dermatology specialty clinic between July 2008 and January 2024. All participants had dermatomyositis and at least 3 years of follow-up and were an average 48 years old. The vast majority were women (87%) and White participants (89%).

Most (68.6%) had myositis-specific autoantibody test results, one of the factors included in the guidelines for determining whether the patient should be classified as low, intermediate, or high risk. Other factors for risk stratification included myositis subtype, age at disease onset, and clinical features. About half (49.2%) had classic dermatomyositis, 42.4% had amyopathic dermatomyositis, 3.8% had juvenile dermatomyositis, 3.2% had hypomyopathic dermatomyositis, 0.8% had antisynthetase syndrome, and 0.5% had immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy.

Just over half the patients (54%) were classified as high risk, while 37.3% were classified as intermediate risk and 8.9% as low risk using the guidelines. Among the 18 patients (4.9%) with paraneoplastic dermatomyositis, 15 were classified as high risk and 3 as intermediate risk.

Of the patients diagnosed with cancer, 55% of cases were diagnosed about a year before their dermatomyositis diagnosis. In three patients, symptoms “suggestive of cancer at the time of dermatomyositis diagnosis, including lymphadenopathy and unexplained weight loss,” led to diagnostic testing that found an underlying cancer.

In the eight patients diagnosed with cancer after their dermatomyositis diagnosis, 75% of the cancers were identified during the first year of follow-up and 25% in the second year. Five were identified based on basic cancer screening and three on enhanced screening.

A total of 11 patients (3%) developed intravenous contrast allergies, and no other adverse events were reported to be associated with cancer screening, but the study was not designed to capture other types of adverse screening effects, such as cost, quality of life, or risk from radiation exposure.

The most common neoplasm identified was breast cancer, found in nine (50%) of the patients using mammography. Two patients had lung cancer identified with chest radiography and two had ovarian cancer identified with abdominal radiography and CT. The remaining five patients included one each with bladder cancer, papillary thyroid cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and adenocarcinoma with unknown primary.

The sensitivity of the guidelines in detecting cancer related to dermatomyositis was 100%, though the authors noted that the “IMACS risk-stratification scheme may overestimate cancer risk and encourage enhanced screening protocols of unclear benefit.” Most of the cancers found after dermatomyositis diagnosis were detected with routine age- and sex-related screening that already falls under basic cancer screening recommendations for the general population. Nonetheless, 90% of the participants fell into the intermediate- and high-risk groups, warranting a more comprehensive and costly enhanced screening protocol.
 

Will the Guidelines Lead to Overscreening? 

The 4.9% cancer prevalence is considerably lower than the typical 15%-25% prevalence among patients with dermatomyositis, but the findings, regardless, suggest the guidelines will lead to overscreening, wrote Andrea D. Maderal, MD, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, and Alisa Femia, MD, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, in an accompanying editorial. Given that the median age in patients with cancer in the study was 58 years — 18 years older than the age cutoff for high-risk criteria — one way to refine the guidelines may be to increase the age for the high-risk category, they suggested.

“While these guidelines led to many ultimately unnecessary screening tests based on currently recommended designations of intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, these guidelines reflect a more conservative approach to screening than was previously performed,” Dr. Maderal and Dr. Femia wrote.

Jeff Gehlhausen, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of dermatology at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he is not concerned about overscreening in patients, however, and is “very enthusiastic” about the findings.

“Patients are very anxious for good reason,” given the typical cancer prevalence of 25% in this population, he said in an interview. “I think therein lies the challenge — with that risk, what is ‘enough’ screening?” Yet this “incredibly impressive” study “provides real insights into the applicability of the IMACS screenings to our dermatomyositis management,” including relevance to his own patients. “Their findings are instructive for how to better evaluate these patients in a more mindful fashion,” he said, and they are particularly welcome, given how widely variable practice has historically been before the guidelines were issued.

“This question has been an outstanding one for decades, and nearly every doctor has a different answer,” Dr. Gehlhausen said. “The introduction of the guidelines alone are now much more actionable with this study, and that’s why it’s such an important one for our community.”

Benedict Wu, DO, PhD, director of Inpatient Dermatology and an assistant professor at Montefiore Einstein and a member of the Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center in New York City, similarly regarded the findings as reassuring, though he was surprised at the low prevalence of cancer in the patients.

“The most reassuring finding was that the detection of most malignancies was possible by using routine age- and sex-related screening combined with basic cancer screening,” Wu said in an interview. “Basic cancer screening can reduce costs while keeping patients safe.”

He also found it reassuring that all the paraneoplastic dermatomyositis was in intermediate- or high-risk patients, and while he does not see the IMACS guidelines as overestimating cancer risk, he does think “the risk stratification and recommended screening tests could be revised to be less ‘aggressive.’ ” 

The overall low rate of cancer in the group “calls into question the need for stringent and annual cancer screening,” he said. “In this large cohort of patients, the fact that malignancy was detected within 2 years of dermatomyositis diagnosis will help guide us with long-term screening recommendations.”

Despite the study’s small size and single-center design, the demographics of the patients nearly represents exactly what is found in the United States more broadly, Wu noted. He also drew attention to how many patients lacked the myositis antibody profile performed, and he agreed with the authors that more extensive and prospective studies need to be conducted. He also emphasized the need to keep in mind that “the primary goal of dermatomyositis management should focus on controlling/reducing the disease burden.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Maderal reported personal fees from argenx. No disclosures were noted for Dr. Gehlhausen and Dr. Wu.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

DUBLIN – As healthcare systems across Europe deal with an increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment, family doctors are emerging as key players in assessing and supporting patients’ decision-making capacities. 

This was a central theme at the 29th WONCA Europe Conference, where the European Young Family Doctors Movement (EYFDM) presented insights from a project conducted across Europe, involving young general practitioners who participated in workshops held in multiple countries.

“Family doctors are the linchpin in these decisions,” said Alina Zidaru, MD, from the Irish College of Physicians, Dublin. “They understand the patient’s history, build long-term relationships, and are best positioned to ensure that decisions reflect the patient’s values, not just what the law or the family might say.”

Dr. Zidaru and her colleague, Nick Mamo, MD, member of EYFDM in Glasgow, Scotland, emphasized the central role family doctors play in ensuring that patient rights and preferences are respected, regardless of their cognitive state. They are often the first to identify cognitive impairments and must carefully navigate the legal and ethical landscape of decision-making support.

“Often, we focus too much on avoiding harm and overlook the principle of autonomy,” said Dr. Mamo. “But it’s essential to give patients the right to make their own decisions, even when those decisions might seem unwise to us.”
 

The Case of Jay

Dr. Zidaru said: “We’ve conducted workshops in Brussels, Vienna, and Sydney, focusing on how to build habits that support patients. We presented real-life cases, like Jay, a 43-year-old man with trisomy and a moderate intellectual disability who must decide whether to undergo surgery for a hernia. The most significant challenge was ensuring continuity of care and respecting his autonomy, despite cognitive limitations.”

Jay’s case illustrates the complex ethical dilemmas faced by family doctors when balancing autonomy with patient safety. In many cases, cognitive impairments raise concerns about whether a patient can make decisions independently. 

During the session, the audience was asked to share their thoughts on the case and to indicate whether they would allow Jay to make his own decision, and if they felt confident in assessing his cognitive capacity. The responses revealed a range of mixed feelings. 
 

Legal and Cultural Variations Across Europe

The session also explored how different European countries approach decision-making for cognitively impaired individuals. A clear divide exists between nations that give family members automatic decision-making rights and those that require legal appointments. 

In the United Kingdom, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes capacity unless proven otherwise. Family doctors can assess patients’ decision-making abilities using any validated tool they find suitable. They should also aim to ensure that decisions are made in the patient’s best interests if they lack capacity. Family members only have legal authority if appointed through formal means, such as a lasting power of attorney.

In Spain and Italy, functional assessments are performed when patients retain decision-making authority in areas where they demonstrate competence. Legal guardianship can be appointed by the courts, sometimes limited to specific areas, but it is intended to support rather than replace the patient’s autonomy. 

In France and Portugal, guardianship may be implemented in specific domains, but the patient’s ability to participate in decisions is always prioritized. 

In Turkey, according to Turkish general practitioners in the audience, the courts and close family members often share the decision-making responsibility.

Dr. Zidaru added that Ireland’s Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 introduced significant changes to how cognitive impairment is managed there. “Ireland adopted a standardized functional test of capacity, used by any doctor. A person can still make decisions as long as they understand, retain, and weigh the information needed to make that choice. If their capacity diminishes, a decision-making assistant, co–decision-maker, or representative can be appointed, but the patient’s will and preferences always come first.”
 

Family Doctors, a Growing Responsibility

“It’s not just about the legal framework: it’s about cultural awareness and early communication,” added Dr. Mamo. “We have to ask ourselves: Do patients have the right to make bad decisions? And how do we, as family doctors, respect that while still ensuring their safety?”

The session concluded with a discussion on how the role of family doctors in decision-making for cognitively impaired patients will evolve as populations age and the incidence of conditions like dementia increases. The workload is rising, and the need for clear, consistent guidelines is critical.

“Family doctors will continue to play a central role in managing these challenges,” Dr. Zidaru emphasized. “But we need more resources, more education, and more support to ensure we can respect patient autonomy without compromising their well-being.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

DUBLIN – As healthcare systems across Europe deal with an increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment, family doctors are emerging as key players in assessing and supporting patients’ decision-making capacities. 

This was a central theme at the 29th WONCA Europe Conference, where the European Young Family Doctors Movement (EYFDM) presented insights from a project conducted across Europe, involving young general practitioners who participated in workshops held in multiple countries.

“Family doctors are the linchpin in these decisions,” said Alina Zidaru, MD, from the Irish College of Physicians, Dublin. “They understand the patient’s history, build long-term relationships, and are best positioned to ensure that decisions reflect the patient’s values, not just what the law or the family might say.”

Dr. Zidaru and her colleague, Nick Mamo, MD, member of EYFDM in Glasgow, Scotland, emphasized the central role family doctors play in ensuring that patient rights and preferences are respected, regardless of their cognitive state. They are often the first to identify cognitive impairments and must carefully navigate the legal and ethical landscape of decision-making support.

“Often, we focus too much on avoiding harm and overlook the principle of autonomy,” said Dr. Mamo. “But it’s essential to give patients the right to make their own decisions, even when those decisions might seem unwise to us.”
 

The Case of Jay

Dr. Zidaru said: “We’ve conducted workshops in Brussels, Vienna, and Sydney, focusing on how to build habits that support patients. We presented real-life cases, like Jay, a 43-year-old man with trisomy and a moderate intellectual disability who must decide whether to undergo surgery for a hernia. The most significant challenge was ensuring continuity of care and respecting his autonomy, despite cognitive limitations.”

Jay’s case illustrates the complex ethical dilemmas faced by family doctors when balancing autonomy with patient safety. In many cases, cognitive impairments raise concerns about whether a patient can make decisions independently. 

During the session, the audience was asked to share their thoughts on the case and to indicate whether they would allow Jay to make his own decision, and if they felt confident in assessing his cognitive capacity. The responses revealed a range of mixed feelings. 
 

Legal and Cultural Variations Across Europe

The session also explored how different European countries approach decision-making for cognitively impaired individuals. A clear divide exists between nations that give family members automatic decision-making rights and those that require legal appointments. 

In the United Kingdom, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes capacity unless proven otherwise. Family doctors can assess patients’ decision-making abilities using any validated tool they find suitable. They should also aim to ensure that decisions are made in the patient’s best interests if they lack capacity. Family members only have legal authority if appointed through formal means, such as a lasting power of attorney.

In Spain and Italy, functional assessments are performed when patients retain decision-making authority in areas where they demonstrate competence. Legal guardianship can be appointed by the courts, sometimes limited to specific areas, but it is intended to support rather than replace the patient’s autonomy. 

In France and Portugal, guardianship may be implemented in specific domains, but the patient’s ability to participate in decisions is always prioritized. 

In Turkey, according to Turkish general practitioners in the audience, the courts and close family members often share the decision-making responsibility.

Dr. Zidaru added that Ireland’s Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 introduced significant changes to how cognitive impairment is managed there. “Ireland adopted a standardized functional test of capacity, used by any doctor. A person can still make decisions as long as they understand, retain, and weigh the information needed to make that choice. If their capacity diminishes, a decision-making assistant, co–decision-maker, or representative can be appointed, but the patient’s will and preferences always come first.”
 

Family Doctors, a Growing Responsibility

“It’s not just about the legal framework: it’s about cultural awareness and early communication,” added Dr. Mamo. “We have to ask ourselves: Do patients have the right to make bad decisions? And how do we, as family doctors, respect that while still ensuring their safety?”

The session concluded with a discussion on how the role of family doctors in decision-making for cognitively impaired patients will evolve as populations age and the incidence of conditions like dementia increases. The workload is rising, and the need for clear, consistent guidelines is critical.

“Family doctors will continue to play a central role in managing these challenges,” Dr. Zidaru emphasized. “But we need more resources, more education, and more support to ensure we can respect patient autonomy without compromising their well-being.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

DUBLIN – As healthcare systems across Europe deal with an increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment, family doctors are emerging as key players in assessing and supporting patients’ decision-making capacities. 

This was a central theme at the 29th WONCA Europe Conference, where the European Young Family Doctors Movement (EYFDM) presented insights from a project conducted across Europe, involving young general practitioners who participated in workshops held in multiple countries.

“Family doctors are the linchpin in these decisions,” said Alina Zidaru, MD, from the Irish College of Physicians, Dublin. “They understand the patient’s history, build long-term relationships, and are best positioned to ensure that decisions reflect the patient’s values, not just what the law or the family might say.”

Dr. Zidaru and her colleague, Nick Mamo, MD, member of EYFDM in Glasgow, Scotland, emphasized the central role family doctors play in ensuring that patient rights and preferences are respected, regardless of their cognitive state. They are often the first to identify cognitive impairments and must carefully navigate the legal and ethical landscape of decision-making support.

“Often, we focus too much on avoiding harm and overlook the principle of autonomy,” said Dr. Mamo. “But it’s essential to give patients the right to make their own decisions, even when those decisions might seem unwise to us.”
 

The Case of Jay

Dr. Zidaru said: “We’ve conducted workshops in Brussels, Vienna, and Sydney, focusing on how to build habits that support patients. We presented real-life cases, like Jay, a 43-year-old man with trisomy and a moderate intellectual disability who must decide whether to undergo surgery for a hernia. The most significant challenge was ensuring continuity of care and respecting his autonomy, despite cognitive limitations.”

Jay’s case illustrates the complex ethical dilemmas faced by family doctors when balancing autonomy with patient safety. In many cases, cognitive impairments raise concerns about whether a patient can make decisions independently. 

During the session, the audience was asked to share their thoughts on the case and to indicate whether they would allow Jay to make his own decision, and if they felt confident in assessing his cognitive capacity. The responses revealed a range of mixed feelings. 
 

Legal and Cultural Variations Across Europe

The session also explored how different European countries approach decision-making for cognitively impaired individuals. A clear divide exists between nations that give family members automatic decision-making rights and those that require legal appointments. 

In the United Kingdom, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes capacity unless proven otherwise. Family doctors can assess patients’ decision-making abilities using any validated tool they find suitable. They should also aim to ensure that decisions are made in the patient’s best interests if they lack capacity. Family members only have legal authority if appointed through formal means, such as a lasting power of attorney.

In Spain and Italy, functional assessments are performed when patients retain decision-making authority in areas where they demonstrate competence. Legal guardianship can be appointed by the courts, sometimes limited to specific areas, but it is intended to support rather than replace the patient’s autonomy. 

In France and Portugal, guardianship may be implemented in specific domains, but the patient’s ability to participate in decisions is always prioritized. 

In Turkey, according to Turkish general practitioners in the audience, the courts and close family members often share the decision-making responsibility.

Dr. Zidaru added that Ireland’s Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 introduced significant changes to how cognitive impairment is managed there. “Ireland adopted a standardized functional test of capacity, used by any doctor. A person can still make decisions as long as they understand, retain, and weigh the information needed to make that choice. If their capacity diminishes, a decision-making assistant, co–decision-maker, or representative can be appointed, but the patient’s will and preferences always come first.”
 

Family Doctors, a Growing Responsibility

“It’s not just about the legal framework: it’s about cultural awareness and early communication,” added Dr. Mamo. “We have to ask ourselves: Do patients have the right to make bad decisions? And how do we, as family doctors, respect that while still ensuring their safety?”

The session concluded with a discussion on how the role of family doctors in decision-making for cognitively impaired patients will evolve as populations age and the incidence of conditions like dementia increases. The workload is rising, and the need for clear, consistent guidelines is critical.

“Family doctors will continue to play a central role in managing these challenges,” Dr. Zidaru emphasized. “But we need more resources, more education, and more support to ensure we can respect patient autonomy without compromising their well-being.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.

Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.

The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.

“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.

The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.

“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”

Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.

Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.

Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.

“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”

Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.

Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.

Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.

Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.

The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.

“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.

The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.

“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”

Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.

Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.

Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.

“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”

Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.

Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.

Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.

Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.

The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.

“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.

The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.

“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”

Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.

Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.

Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.

“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”

Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.

Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.

Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Women with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) have a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for these diseases after diagnosis.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based registry study including 3972 women diagnosed with spontaneous POI between 1988 and 2017.
• A total of 15,708 female population controls matched by age and municipality of residence were included for comparison.
• Autoimmune disease diagnoses were evaluated from childhood until the end of 2017 using the Hospital Discharge Registry.
• Women with a history of cancer or bilateral oophorectomy were excluded from the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with POI had a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis compared to controls (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% CI, 2.2-3.1).
• The prevalence of specific autoimmune diseases such as polyglandular autoimmune diseases (OR, 25.8; 95% CI, 9.0-74.1) and Addison disease (OR, 22.9; 95% CI, 7.9-66.1) was significantly higher in women with POI.
• The standardized incidence ratios for being diagnosed with a severe autoimmune disease after POI diagnosis was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.3-3.4) during the first 3 years, decreasing to 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.6) after 12 years.
• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of diabetes type 1 and ankylosing spondylitis between women with POI and the reference cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

“The study results strengthen the hypothesis that autoimmune mechanisms play an important role in the pathogenesis of POI. Future studies should focus on the immunological mechanism of POI from preventative and curative perspectives,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna M. Savukoski, Oulu University Hospital in Finland. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included only autoimmune disorders diagnosed in specialized health care, which may underestimate the overall prevalence of autoimmune disorders in women with POI. Additionally, the study did not account for confounders such as body mass index and smoking, which are associated with the risk for autoimmune disease and POI.

DISCLOSURES:

Ms. Savukoski received grants from the Finnish Menopause Society, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Women with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) have a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for these diseases after diagnosis.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based registry study including 3972 women diagnosed with spontaneous POI between 1988 and 2017.
• A total of 15,708 female population controls matched by age and municipality of residence were included for comparison.
• Autoimmune disease diagnoses were evaluated from childhood until the end of 2017 using the Hospital Discharge Registry.
• Women with a history of cancer or bilateral oophorectomy were excluded from the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with POI had a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis compared to controls (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% CI, 2.2-3.1).
• The prevalence of specific autoimmune diseases such as polyglandular autoimmune diseases (OR, 25.8; 95% CI, 9.0-74.1) and Addison disease (OR, 22.9; 95% CI, 7.9-66.1) was significantly higher in women with POI.
• The standardized incidence ratios for being diagnosed with a severe autoimmune disease after POI diagnosis was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.3-3.4) during the first 3 years, decreasing to 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.6) after 12 years.
• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of diabetes type 1 and ankylosing spondylitis between women with POI and the reference cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

“The study results strengthen the hypothesis that autoimmune mechanisms play an important role in the pathogenesis of POI. Future studies should focus on the immunological mechanism of POI from preventative and curative perspectives,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna M. Savukoski, Oulu University Hospital in Finland. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included only autoimmune disorders diagnosed in specialized health care, which may underestimate the overall prevalence of autoimmune disorders in women with POI. Additionally, the study did not account for confounders such as body mass index and smoking, which are associated with the risk for autoimmune disease and POI.

DISCLOSURES:

Ms. Savukoski received grants from the Finnish Menopause Society, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Women with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) have a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for these diseases after diagnosis.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based registry study including 3972 women diagnosed with spontaneous POI between 1988 and 2017.
• A total of 15,708 female population controls matched by age and municipality of residence were included for comparison.
• Autoimmune disease diagnoses were evaluated from childhood until the end of 2017 using the Hospital Discharge Registry.
• Women with a history of cancer or bilateral oophorectomy were excluded from the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with POI had a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis compared to controls (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% CI, 2.2-3.1).
• The prevalence of specific autoimmune diseases such as polyglandular autoimmune diseases (OR, 25.8; 95% CI, 9.0-74.1) and Addison disease (OR, 22.9; 95% CI, 7.9-66.1) was significantly higher in women with POI.
• The standardized incidence ratios for being diagnosed with a severe autoimmune disease after POI diagnosis was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.3-3.4) during the first 3 years, decreasing to 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.6) after 12 years.
• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of diabetes type 1 and ankylosing spondylitis between women with POI and the reference cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

“The study results strengthen the hypothesis that autoimmune mechanisms play an important role in the pathogenesis of POI. Future studies should focus on the immunological mechanism of POI from preventative and curative perspectives,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna M. Savukoski, Oulu University Hospital in Finland. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included only autoimmune disorders diagnosed in specialized health care, which may underestimate the overall prevalence of autoimmune disorders in women with POI. Additionally, the study did not account for confounders such as body mass index and smoking, which are associated with the risk for autoimmune disease and POI.

DISCLOSURES:

Ms. Savukoski received grants from the Finnish Menopause Society, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with Crohn’s disease, a multicenter prospective cohort study found that anti-TNF therapy failed to achieve remission at 3 years in about two-thirds of cases, and that high drug concentrations early in treatment are linked to greater probability of sustained remission.

“The relationship between drug concentrations, immunogenicity and clinical response is likely to be multidirectional; as an observational study, we cannot definitively show the low drug levels are causative. However, our data are consistent with those from elsewhere and confirm the importance of achieving good drug levels to maximize the chances of success with anti-TNF therapy,” said Nicholas Kennedy, MBBS, PhD, a consultant gastroenterologist at Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom, and coauthor of the study published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology .

“We also showed that adequate dosing of thiopurines was needed to prevent immunogenicity, along the lines typically used to treat Crohn’s disease rather than the lower doses sometimes proposed,” he added.

The findings come from the Personalized Anti-TNF Therapy in Crohn’s Disease (PANTS) study conducted in the UK, which included 955 patients treated with infliximab and 655 treated with adalimumab between March 2014 and September 2017. The participants were 6 years or older, the median age was 32.5 years, and 51% were female. 

The latest findings come from a 2-year extension of the original 1-year PANTS study, published in 2019, which found that low drug concentrations predicted anti-TNF treatment failure — a result likely attributable in part to immunogenicity, since low-drug concentrations predicted the presence of anti-drug antibodies, and anti-drug antibodies in turn predicted low drug concentrations, according to Miguel Regueiro, MD, AGAF, chief of the Digestive Diseases Institute and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio.

“This is one of the more important studies looking at the longitudinal care of patients with Crohn’s disease on infliximab and adalimumab,” said Dr. Regueiro, who was not involved with the study.

The extension study found that anti-drug antibodies and undetectable drug levels were associated with both treatment without an accompanying immunomodulator and carriage of the HLA-DQA1*05 genetic risk factor, though the latter was true only for treatment with infliximab.

Cleveland Clinic

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with Crohn’s disease, a multicenter prospective cohort study found that anti-TNF therapy failed to achieve remission at 3 years in about two-thirds of cases, and that high drug concentrations early in treatment are linked to greater probability of sustained remission.

“The relationship between drug concentrations, immunogenicity and clinical response is likely to be multidirectional; as an observational study, we cannot definitively show the low drug levels are causative. However, our data are consistent with those from elsewhere and confirm the importance of achieving good drug levels to maximize the chances of success with anti-TNF therapy,” said Nicholas Kennedy, MBBS, PhD, a consultant gastroenterologist at Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom, and coauthor of the study published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology .

“We also showed that adequate dosing of thiopurines was needed to prevent immunogenicity, along the lines typically used to treat Crohn’s disease rather than the lower doses sometimes proposed,” he added.

The findings come from the Personalized Anti-TNF Therapy in Crohn’s Disease (PANTS) study conducted in the UK, which included 955 patients treated with infliximab and 655 treated with adalimumab between March 2014 and September 2017. The participants were 6 years or older, the median age was 32.5 years, and 51% were female. 

The latest findings come from a 2-year extension of the original 1-year PANTS study, published in 2019, which found that low drug concentrations predicted anti-TNF treatment failure — a result likely attributable in part to immunogenicity, since low-drug concentrations predicted the presence of anti-drug antibodies, and anti-drug antibodies in turn predicted low drug concentrations, according to Miguel Regueiro, MD, AGAF, chief of the Digestive Diseases Institute and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio.

“This is one of the more important studies looking at the longitudinal care of patients with Crohn’s disease on infliximab and adalimumab,” said Dr. Regueiro, who was not involved with the study.

The extension study found that anti-drug antibodies and undetectable drug levels were associated with both treatment without an accompanying immunomodulator and carriage of the HLA-DQA1*05 genetic risk factor, though the latter was true only for treatment with infliximab.

Cleveland Clinic

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with Crohn’s disease, a multicenter prospective cohort study found that anti-TNF therapy failed to achieve remission at 3 years in about two-thirds of cases, and that high drug concentrations early in treatment are linked to greater probability of sustained remission.

“The relationship between drug concentrations, immunogenicity and clinical response is likely to be multidirectional; as an observational study, we cannot definitively show the low drug levels are causative. However, our data are consistent with those from elsewhere and confirm the importance of achieving good drug levels to maximize the chances of success with anti-TNF therapy,” said Nicholas Kennedy, MBBS, PhD, a consultant gastroenterologist at Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom, and coauthor of the study published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology .

“We also showed that adequate dosing of thiopurines was needed to prevent immunogenicity, along the lines typically used to treat Crohn’s disease rather than the lower doses sometimes proposed,” he added.

The findings come from the Personalized Anti-TNF Therapy in Crohn’s Disease (PANTS) study conducted in the UK, which included 955 patients treated with infliximab and 655 treated with adalimumab between March 2014 and September 2017. The participants were 6 years or older, the median age was 32.5 years, and 51% were female. 

The latest findings come from a 2-year extension of the original 1-year PANTS study, published in 2019, which found that low drug concentrations predicted anti-TNF treatment failure — a result likely attributable in part to immunogenicity, since low-drug concentrations predicted the presence of anti-drug antibodies, and anti-drug antibodies in turn predicted low drug concentrations, according to Miguel Regueiro, MD, AGAF, chief of the Digestive Diseases Institute and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio.

“This is one of the more important studies looking at the longitudinal care of patients with Crohn’s disease on infliximab and adalimumab,” said Dr. Regueiro, who was not involved with the study.

The extension study found that anti-drug antibodies and undetectable drug levels were associated with both treatment without an accompanying immunomodulator and carriage of the HLA-DQA1*05 genetic risk factor, though the latter was true only for treatment with infliximab.

Cleveland Clinic

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What’s the outlook for COVID-19 and flu this fall and winter? It’ll probably be a lot like last year, experts say.

“We currently expect this flu season to be comparable to last year’s season,” said Adrienne Keen, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics. “We expect this year’s COVID-19 season peak to be similar to last year’s or lower.” The CDC is still analyzing COVID surveillance data from the summer and will update the forecast as more is learned.

For COVID, that means it won’t be as bad as the pandemic years, and for the flu, it’s a typical pre-pandemic season. But status quo does not mean great.

Between October 2023 and April 2024, as many as 75 million people got the flu in the United States, according to CDC estimates, resulting in up to 900,000 hospitalizations and between 17,000 and 100,000 deaths. In 2023, about 900,000 Americans were hospitalized with COVID and 75,000 died.

Other experts agreed with Dr. Keen’s prediction.

But unknowns — such as a COVID variant that takes off quickly or a surprise influenza strain — could knock that forecast flat. Getting vaccinated remains crucial, public health officials stressed. 
 

Predicting COVID

Two key predictors of how bad an upcoming COVID season will be are the cycling of new variants and the population’s immunity (protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune through vaccination or previous infection). 

When new variants go up and immunity goes down, “we tend to see the increase in cases,” said Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy and a professor of public health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. But if the number of variants goes down and immunity levels go up, the outlook is more favorable.

The new COVID variant called XEC has been found in at least 25 states. On September 27, the CDC added the variant to the COVID tracker. It now accounts for 6% of US cases. This was expected, as the variant has been circulating in Europe, said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar and infectious disease expert at the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 

“There will always be a new variant appearing, and one falling,” he said. “So the fact that this is happening is not surprising.” 

Meanwhile, the summer COVID surge has provided postinfection immunity for some people. “What’s likely is, we are going to see substantial protection of the population for several months based on previous infection and in some cases vaccination,” Dr. Osterholm said. That means protection from serious illness, hospitalizations, and deaths (but not necessarily infection). That protection could last through the year or into early 2025.

The timing of 2024’s winter surge will likely be a bit later than 2023’s, said Andrew Pekosz, PhD, a professor and vice chair of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, “peaking just after the Christmas/New Year holiday.”

During the 2023-2024 season, weekly COVID hospitalizations peaked the week of Dec. 30, said Justin Lessler, PhD, a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a member of the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub.

But variants are unpredictable. “There’s a chance that the XEC variant may take off and spread, or might not,” said Dr. Adalja. As of September 28, the Omicron variant KP.3.1.1 was leading, accounting for 58.7% of US cases, according to the CDC.

While Dr. Adalja agreed that 2024’s COVID season will probably be like 2023’s, “we have to be prepared for cases and hospitalizations going up,” he said, “but not to the point of a crisis.” A return to lockdowns and social distancing is unlikely.

Still, older adults and others at higher risk of getting very sick from COVID should consider masking during travel, said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, MSc, an associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University, Jonesboro.
 

Flu Forecasts

Predicting flu season this early is hard, said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, a professor of environmental health sciences and professor of climate at Colombia University, New York.

“You can look at the CDC forecast and use it as a very loose guide right now,” said Dr. Shaman, who won the CDC’s first “Predict the Influenza Season Challenge” in 2014. “Until there is actually flu, it’s like trying to predict the landfall of a hurricane.” Flu activity remained low as of September 14 (the most current data available), according to the CDC.

When flu activity picks up, typically in mid-October or November, experts look at the dominant strain, exposure to similar strains in previous years, and how well-matched the current flu vaccine is to that dominant strain, Dr. Shaman said. Vaccine makers must make an educated guess months in advance regarding which strain to target, to allow time for production.

The vaccination rate plays a role, too, but that tends to remain constant, Dr. Shaman said. According to the CDC, less than half of adults age 18 and up got a flu vaccination last year.

Experts also consider flu patterns in the Southern Hemisphere, where 2024 flu activity has mostly involved two subtypes of influenza A — H1N1 and H3N2 — and some influenza B, the CDC found.
 

How Well Do This Year’s Vaccines and Viruses Match Up?

The FDA has authorized three updated COVID vaccines for this fall. Novavax targets the JN.1 strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Both mRNA vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer, target KP.2, a descendant of JN.1. All three target current predominant variants, and any one of them is recommended by the CDC.

The vaccines are a good “though not perfect match to virtually all the circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pekosz.

Experts said that the shots will protect against the XEC variant. 

“XEC and its sublineages are expected to be the dominant fall/winter variant group,” said Dr. Rajnarayanan. 

This year’s flu vaccines, all trivalent (protecting against three viruses), will target the three strains expected to circulate — H1N1, H3N2, and influenza B (Victoria), according to the CDC.

People should still get vaccinated, Dr. Adalja said, and use home tests for flu and COVID and take antivirals promptly when needed. The goal should not be status quo but rather fewer COVID and flu hospitalizations and deaths.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

What’s the outlook for COVID-19 and flu this fall and winter? It’ll probably be a lot like last year, experts say.

“We currently expect this flu season to be comparable to last year’s season,” said Adrienne Keen, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics. “We expect this year’s COVID-19 season peak to be similar to last year’s or lower.” The CDC is still analyzing COVID surveillance data from the summer and will update the forecast as more is learned.

For COVID, that means it won’t be as bad as the pandemic years, and for the flu, it’s a typical pre-pandemic season. But status quo does not mean great.

Between October 2023 and April 2024, as many as 75 million people got the flu in the United States, according to CDC estimates, resulting in up to 900,000 hospitalizations and between 17,000 and 100,000 deaths. In 2023, about 900,000 Americans were hospitalized with COVID and 75,000 died.

Other experts agreed with Dr. Keen’s prediction.

But unknowns — such as a COVID variant that takes off quickly or a surprise influenza strain — could knock that forecast flat. Getting vaccinated remains crucial, public health officials stressed. 
 

Predicting COVID

Two key predictors of how bad an upcoming COVID season will be are the cycling of new variants and the population’s immunity (protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune through vaccination or previous infection). 

When new variants go up and immunity goes down, “we tend to see the increase in cases,” said Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy and a professor of public health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. But if the number of variants goes down and immunity levels go up, the outlook is more favorable.

The new COVID variant called XEC has been found in at least 25 states. On September 27, the CDC added the variant to the COVID tracker. It now accounts for 6% of US cases. This was expected, as the variant has been circulating in Europe, said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar and infectious disease expert at the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 

“There will always be a new variant appearing, and one falling,” he said. “So the fact that this is happening is not surprising.” 

Meanwhile, the summer COVID surge has provided postinfection immunity for some people. “What’s likely is, we are going to see substantial protection of the population for several months based on previous infection and in some cases vaccination,” Dr. Osterholm said. That means protection from serious illness, hospitalizations, and deaths (but not necessarily infection). That protection could last through the year or into early 2025.

The timing of 2024’s winter surge will likely be a bit later than 2023’s, said Andrew Pekosz, PhD, a professor and vice chair of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, “peaking just after the Christmas/New Year holiday.”

During the 2023-2024 season, weekly COVID hospitalizations peaked the week of Dec. 30, said Justin Lessler, PhD, a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a member of the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub.

But variants are unpredictable. “There’s a chance that the XEC variant may take off and spread, or might not,” said Dr. Adalja. As of September 28, the Omicron variant KP.3.1.1 was leading, accounting for 58.7% of US cases, according to the CDC.

While Dr. Adalja agreed that 2024’s COVID season will probably be like 2023’s, “we have to be prepared for cases and hospitalizations going up,” he said, “but not to the point of a crisis.” A return to lockdowns and social distancing is unlikely.

Still, older adults and others at higher risk of getting very sick from COVID should consider masking during travel, said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, MSc, an associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University, Jonesboro.
 

Flu Forecasts

Predicting flu season this early is hard, said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, a professor of environmental health sciences and professor of climate at Colombia University, New York.

“You can look at the CDC forecast and use it as a very loose guide right now,” said Dr. Shaman, who won the CDC’s first “Predict the Influenza Season Challenge” in 2014. “Until there is actually flu, it’s like trying to predict the landfall of a hurricane.” Flu activity remained low as of September 14 (the most current data available), according to the CDC.

When flu activity picks up, typically in mid-October or November, experts look at the dominant strain, exposure to similar strains in previous years, and how well-matched the current flu vaccine is to that dominant strain, Dr. Shaman said. Vaccine makers must make an educated guess months in advance regarding which strain to target, to allow time for production.

The vaccination rate plays a role, too, but that tends to remain constant, Dr. Shaman said. According to the CDC, less than half of adults age 18 and up got a flu vaccination last year.

Experts also consider flu patterns in the Southern Hemisphere, where 2024 flu activity has mostly involved two subtypes of influenza A — H1N1 and H3N2 — and some influenza B, the CDC found.
 

How Well Do This Year’s Vaccines and Viruses Match Up?

The FDA has authorized three updated COVID vaccines for this fall. Novavax targets the JN.1 strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Both mRNA vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer, target KP.2, a descendant of JN.1. All three target current predominant variants, and any one of them is recommended by the CDC.

The vaccines are a good “though not perfect match to virtually all the circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pekosz.

Experts said that the shots will protect against the XEC variant. 

“XEC and its sublineages are expected to be the dominant fall/winter variant group,” said Dr. Rajnarayanan. 

This year’s flu vaccines, all trivalent (protecting against three viruses), will target the three strains expected to circulate — H1N1, H3N2, and influenza B (Victoria), according to the CDC.

People should still get vaccinated, Dr. Adalja said, and use home tests for flu and COVID and take antivirals promptly when needed. The goal should not be status quo but rather fewer COVID and flu hospitalizations and deaths.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

What’s the outlook for COVID-19 and flu this fall and winter? It’ll probably be a lot like last year, experts say.

“We currently expect this flu season to be comparable to last year’s season,” said Adrienne Keen, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics. “We expect this year’s COVID-19 season peak to be similar to last year’s or lower.” The CDC is still analyzing COVID surveillance data from the summer and will update the forecast as more is learned.

For COVID, that means it won’t be as bad as the pandemic years, and for the flu, it’s a typical pre-pandemic season. But status quo does not mean great.

Between October 2023 and April 2024, as many as 75 million people got the flu in the United States, according to CDC estimates, resulting in up to 900,000 hospitalizations and between 17,000 and 100,000 deaths. In 2023, about 900,000 Americans were hospitalized with COVID and 75,000 died.

Other experts agreed with Dr. Keen’s prediction.

But unknowns — such as a COVID variant that takes off quickly or a surprise influenza strain — could knock that forecast flat. Getting vaccinated remains crucial, public health officials stressed. 
 

Predicting COVID

Two key predictors of how bad an upcoming COVID season will be are the cycling of new variants and the population’s immunity (protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune through vaccination or previous infection). 

When new variants go up and immunity goes down, “we tend to see the increase in cases,” said Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy and a professor of public health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. But if the number of variants goes down and immunity levels go up, the outlook is more favorable.

The new COVID variant called XEC has been found in at least 25 states. On September 27, the CDC added the variant to the COVID tracker. It now accounts for 6% of US cases. This was expected, as the variant has been circulating in Europe, said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar and infectious disease expert at the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 

“There will always be a new variant appearing, and one falling,” he said. “So the fact that this is happening is not surprising.” 

Meanwhile, the summer COVID surge has provided postinfection immunity for some people. “What’s likely is, we are going to see substantial protection of the population for several months based on previous infection and in some cases vaccination,” Dr. Osterholm said. That means protection from serious illness, hospitalizations, and deaths (but not necessarily infection). That protection could last through the year or into early 2025.

The timing of 2024’s winter surge will likely be a bit later than 2023’s, said Andrew Pekosz, PhD, a professor and vice chair of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, “peaking just after the Christmas/New Year holiday.”

During the 2023-2024 season, weekly COVID hospitalizations peaked the week of Dec. 30, said Justin Lessler, PhD, a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a member of the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub.

But variants are unpredictable. “There’s a chance that the XEC variant may take off and spread, or might not,” said Dr. Adalja. As of September 28, the Omicron variant KP.3.1.1 was leading, accounting for 58.7% of US cases, according to the CDC.

While Dr. Adalja agreed that 2024’s COVID season will probably be like 2023’s, “we have to be prepared for cases and hospitalizations going up,” he said, “but not to the point of a crisis.” A return to lockdowns and social distancing is unlikely.

Still, older adults and others at higher risk of getting very sick from COVID should consider masking during travel, said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, MSc, an associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University, Jonesboro.
 

Flu Forecasts

Predicting flu season this early is hard, said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, a professor of environmental health sciences and professor of climate at Colombia University, New York.

“You can look at the CDC forecast and use it as a very loose guide right now,” said Dr. Shaman, who won the CDC’s first “Predict the Influenza Season Challenge” in 2014. “Until there is actually flu, it’s like trying to predict the landfall of a hurricane.” Flu activity remained low as of September 14 (the most current data available), according to the CDC.

When flu activity picks up, typically in mid-October or November, experts look at the dominant strain, exposure to similar strains in previous years, and how well-matched the current flu vaccine is to that dominant strain, Dr. Shaman said. Vaccine makers must make an educated guess months in advance regarding which strain to target, to allow time for production.

The vaccination rate plays a role, too, but that tends to remain constant, Dr. Shaman said. According to the CDC, less than half of adults age 18 and up got a flu vaccination last year.

Experts also consider flu patterns in the Southern Hemisphere, where 2024 flu activity has mostly involved two subtypes of influenza A — H1N1 and H3N2 — and some influenza B, the CDC found.
 

How Well Do This Year’s Vaccines and Viruses Match Up?

The FDA has authorized three updated COVID vaccines for this fall. Novavax targets the JN.1 strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Both mRNA vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer, target KP.2, a descendant of JN.1. All three target current predominant variants, and any one of them is recommended by the CDC.

The vaccines are a good “though not perfect match to virtually all the circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pekosz.

Experts said that the shots will protect against the XEC variant. 

“XEC and its sublineages are expected to be the dominant fall/winter variant group,” said Dr. Rajnarayanan. 

This year’s flu vaccines, all trivalent (protecting against three viruses), will target the three strains expected to circulate — H1N1, H3N2, and influenza B (Victoria), according to the CDC.

People should still get vaccinated, Dr. Adalja said, and use home tests for flu and COVID and take antivirals promptly when needed. The goal should not be status quo but rather fewer COVID and flu hospitalizations and deaths.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

COPENHAGEN — Growing evidence supports the use of highly effective disease-modifying therapies for children with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, only few of these medications are licensed for pediatric use, indicating it may be time to reconsider the standard treatment approach for this patient population.

Treatments for pediatric-onset MS have mostly been used off-label until the recent approvals of fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide. Typically, children with MS start with moderately effective therapies, while more potent options are reserved for those who don’t respond.

However, recent research suggests this may not be the most effective treatment strategy for this patient population. Several studies suggesting impressive treatment responses to highly effective therapies (HETs) in children were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.

In one study, initiating monoclonal antibody treatment during childhood was associated with reduced disability into early adulthood and beyond.

“Our findings are a strong argument for rethinking current treatment guidelines,” said study investigator Sifat Sharmin, PhD, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

“By allowing earlier access to highly effective treatments, we can significantly enhance the quality of life for children with MS and reduce the burden of long-term disability,” she added.

In another presentation, Yael Hacohen, MD, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, England, noted that the use of these more effective monoclonal antibody therapies in children with MS has been associated with some improvements in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores after 2 or 3 years of treatment.

Maybe this is a sign that “this is a population that can repair, in contrast to adult patients,” she wondered.

MS is primarily a disease of adults, but pediatric MS accounts for up to 5% of all cases. Children with MS tend to have much more active disease than adults, Dr. Hacohen explained. However, they also tend to recover from attacks more quickly with little disability, which sometimes causes diagnostic delays.

A pediatrician or family doctor will often dismiss pins and needles or blurred vision that only lasts a couple of days and won’t send the patient for an MRI, she said. But on MRI, pediatric patients with MS often have multiple lesions, even though they may have had very few symptoms. The EDSS may not change very much, but there can still be significant brain atrophy.

Over the past 20 years, there’s been an explosion of new disease-modifying treatments for MS, but these high-efficacy treatments, such as antibody therapies, are often not prescribed until the patient reaches the age of 18 years, both Dr. Sharmin and Dr. Hacohen pointed out.

“We need to get some of these medications approved for use in children,” Dr. Hacohen said.
 

Slowed Disability

In her presentation, Dr. Sharmin reported an observational study that included 282 patients younger than 18 years at MS onset identified from the French MS Registry, the Italian MS Register, and the Global MSBase Registry.

Of these, 110 (39%) had initiated therapy with ocrelizumab, rituximab, or natalizumab early in the disease course between ages 12 and 17 years and 172 (61%) had initiated treatment with one of these agents at ages 20-22 years.

The primary outcome was the difference in EDSS scores from baseline (at age 18 years) to ages 23-27 years between those who had started treatment with one of these agents early and those who had started late.

At the baseline of age 18 years, the median EDSS score was 1.5 in the early group and 1.3 in the late group. Median follow-up time was 10.8 years.

The data were adjusted for baseline differences in factors such as sex, age at symptom onset, time from onset to clinically definite MS, and the number of relapses (using inverse probability treatment weighting based on propensity scores).

Results showed that between ages 23 and 27 years, disability was a 0.57 step lower in the early group than in the late group. The mean absolute differences in EDSS from baseline were 0.40 in the early group and 0.95 in the late group. This benefit of early treatment persisted throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

The substantially lower risk of progressing to higher disability levels in the early treatment group was particularly evident in the moderate disability range, where further progression was reduced by up to 97%, Dr. Sharmin noted.

“Starting these highly effective therapies, before the onset of significant neurological impairments, appears crucial for preserving neurological function in children with relapsing-remitting MS over the long term,” she said.

These findings highlight the critical importance of early intervention in pediatric-onset MS, she concluded.

The researchers are planning further work to generate more evidence to support the proactive treatment of pediatric-onset MS, with a particular focus on assessing the long-term risks for immunosuppressive therapies in this population.
 

Ocrelizumab Experience in Children

Dr. Hacohen reported on a UK cohort of children with MS treated with ocrelizumab, with 66 patients having more than 12 months of follow-up. Of these, only four patients had relapses, and there was no evidence of disease activity in 94% patients.

“We’ve stopped doing relapse clinic because they really don’t relapse,” Dr. Hacohen reported.

“This has completely changed our practice in pediatric MS,” she said. Twice a year, patients come in to have pre-infusion bloods and clinical assessments and then return a month later for treatment.

“They only have to come to the hospital for 4 days a year, and the rest of the time, they can forget they have MS,” said Dr. Hacohen.

In terms of complications, one patient in the UK cohort developed enterovirus meningitis but recovered completely, and two patients had hypogammaglobulinemia and were changed to an extended interval or to a different agent.

Dr. Hacohen cautioned that hypogammaglobulinemia — a condition in which immunoglobulin levels are below normal — is “something that hypothetically we should maybe be more worried about in the pediatric population, particularly as these patients are more likely to be on anti-CD20 therapies for a much longer time.”

She said this complication tends to happen after about 4 or 5 years of treatment. “If we start seeing IgG levels dropping, we need to come up with a plan about extending the dosing interval. We need clinical trials to look at this.”

Dr. Hacohen also drew attention to the issue of vaccinations not being effective in patients on anti-CD20 antibody therapy, which could be a particular problem in children.

However, given that vaccinations do seem to be effective in patients taking natalizumab, pediatric patients with highly active disease could receive the drug for 3-6 months while receiving vaccines and then switched over to ocrelizumab, she said.

Giving natalizumab for such a short period is not believed to have a high risk of developing JCV antibodies, she added.

In another presentation, Brenda Banwell, MD, Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, reported new data from an early study (OPERETTA 1) with ocrelizumab in pediatric relapsing-remitting MS showing a safety profile similar to that observed in adults. The suggested dose is 300 mg for children under 35 kg and 600 mg for adults over 35 kg, administered every 24 weeks. These doses will be further investigated in the ongoing phase III OPERETTA 2 trial.

Dr. Sharmin received a postdoctoral fellowship from MS Australia. The OPERETTA studies were sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Banwell served as a consultant to Roche. Dr. Hacohen reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN — Growing evidence supports the use of highly effective disease-modifying therapies for children with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, only few of these medications are licensed for pediatric use, indicating it may be time to reconsider the standard treatment approach for this patient population.

Treatments for pediatric-onset MS have mostly been used off-label until the recent approvals of fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide. Typically, children with MS start with moderately effective therapies, while more potent options are reserved for those who don’t respond.

However, recent research suggests this may not be the most effective treatment strategy for this patient population. Several studies suggesting impressive treatment responses to highly effective therapies (HETs) in children were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.

In one study, initiating monoclonal antibody treatment during childhood was associated with reduced disability into early adulthood and beyond.

“Our findings are a strong argument for rethinking current treatment guidelines,” said study investigator Sifat Sharmin, PhD, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

“By allowing earlier access to highly effective treatments, we can significantly enhance the quality of life for children with MS and reduce the burden of long-term disability,” she added.

In another presentation, Yael Hacohen, MD, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, England, noted that the use of these more effective monoclonal antibody therapies in children with MS has been associated with some improvements in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores after 2 or 3 years of treatment.

Maybe this is a sign that “this is a population that can repair, in contrast to adult patients,” she wondered.

MS is primarily a disease of adults, but pediatric MS accounts for up to 5% of all cases. Children with MS tend to have much more active disease than adults, Dr. Hacohen explained. However, they also tend to recover from attacks more quickly with little disability, which sometimes causes diagnostic delays.

A pediatrician or family doctor will often dismiss pins and needles or blurred vision that only lasts a couple of days and won’t send the patient for an MRI, she said. But on MRI, pediatric patients with MS often have multiple lesions, even though they may have had very few symptoms. The EDSS may not change very much, but there can still be significant brain atrophy.

Over the past 20 years, there’s been an explosion of new disease-modifying treatments for MS, but these high-efficacy treatments, such as antibody therapies, are often not prescribed until the patient reaches the age of 18 years, both Dr. Sharmin and Dr. Hacohen pointed out.

“We need to get some of these medications approved for use in children,” Dr. Hacohen said.
 

Slowed Disability

In her presentation, Dr. Sharmin reported an observational study that included 282 patients younger than 18 years at MS onset identified from the French MS Registry, the Italian MS Register, and the Global MSBase Registry.

Of these, 110 (39%) had initiated therapy with ocrelizumab, rituximab, or natalizumab early in the disease course between ages 12 and 17 years and 172 (61%) had initiated treatment with one of these agents at ages 20-22 years.

The primary outcome was the difference in EDSS scores from baseline (at age 18 years) to ages 23-27 years between those who had started treatment with one of these agents early and those who had started late.

At the baseline of age 18 years, the median EDSS score was 1.5 in the early group and 1.3 in the late group. Median follow-up time was 10.8 years.

The data were adjusted for baseline differences in factors such as sex, age at symptom onset, time from onset to clinically definite MS, and the number of relapses (using inverse probability treatment weighting based on propensity scores).

Results showed that between ages 23 and 27 years, disability was a 0.57 step lower in the early group than in the late group. The mean absolute differences in EDSS from baseline were 0.40 in the early group and 0.95 in the late group. This benefit of early treatment persisted throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

The substantially lower risk of progressing to higher disability levels in the early treatment group was particularly evident in the moderate disability range, where further progression was reduced by up to 97%, Dr. Sharmin noted.

“Starting these highly effective therapies, before the onset of significant neurological impairments, appears crucial for preserving neurological function in children with relapsing-remitting MS over the long term,” she said.

These findings highlight the critical importance of early intervention in pediatric-onset MS, she concluded.

The researchers are planning further work to generate more evidence to support the proactive treatment of pediatric-onset MS, with a particular focus on assessing the long-term risks for immunosuppressive therapies in this population.
 

Ocrelizumab Experience in Children

Dr. Hacohen reported on a UK cohort of children with MS treated with ocrelizumab, with 66 patients having more than 12 months of follow-up. Of these, only four patients had relapses, and there was no evidence of disease activity in 94% patients.

“We’ve stopped doing relapse clinic because they really don’t relapse,” Dr. Hacohen reported.

“This has completely changed our practice in pediatric MS,” she said. Twice a year, patients come in to have pre-infusion bloods and clinical assessments and then return a month later for treatment.

“They only have to come to the hospital for 4 days a year, and the rest of the time, they can forget they have MS,” said Dr. Hacohen.

In terms of complications, one patient in the UK cohort developed enterovirus meningitis but recovered completely, and two patients had hypogammaglobulinemia and were changed to an extended interval or to a different agent.

Dr. Hacohen cautioned that hypogammaglobulinemia — a condition in which immunoglobulin levels are below normal — is “something that hypothetically we should maybe be more worried about in the pediatric population, particularly as these patients are more likely to be on anti-CD20 therapies for a much longer time.”

She said this complication tends to happen after about 4 or 5 years of treatment. “If we start seeing IgG levels dropping, we need to come up with a plan about extending the dosing interval. We need clinical trials to look at this.”

Dr. Hacohen also drew attention to the issue of vaccinations not being effective in patients on anti-CD20 antibody therapy, which could be a particular problem in children.

However, given that vaccinations do seem to be effective in patients taking natalizumab, pediatric patients with highly active disease could receive the drug for 3-6 months while receiving vaccines and then switched over to ocrelizumab, she said.

Giving natalizumab for such a short period is not believed to have a high risk of developing JCV antibodies, she added.

In another presentation, Brenda Banwell, MD, Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, reported new data from an early study (OPERETTA 1) with ocrelizumab in pediatric relapsing-remitting MS showing a safety profile similar to that observed in adults. The suggested dose is 300 mg for children under 35 kg and 600 mg for adults over 35 kg, administered every 24 weeks. These doses will be further investigated in the ongoing phase III OPERETTA 2 trial.

Dr. Sharmin received a postdoctoral fellowship from MS Australia. The OPERETTA studies were sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Banwell served as a consultant to Roche. Dr. Hacohen reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN — Growing evidence supports the use of highly effective disease-modifying therapies for children with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, only few of these medications are licensed for pediatric use, indicating it may be time to reconsider the standard treatment approach for this patient population.

Treatments for pediatric-onset MS have mostly been used off-label until the recent approvals of fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide. Typically, children with MS start with moderately effective therapies, while more potent options are reserved for those who don’t respond.

However, recent research suggests this may not be the most effective treatment strategy for this patient population. Several studies suggesting impressive treatment responses to highly effective therapies (HETs) in children were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.

In one study, initiating monoclonal antibody treatment during childhood was associated with reduced disability into early adulthood and beyond.

“Our findings are a strong argument for rethinking current treatment guidelines,” said study investigator Sifat Sharmin, PhD, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

“By allowing earlier access to highly effective treatments, we can significantly enhance the quality of life for children with MS and reduce the burden of long-term disability,” she added.

In another presentation, Yael Hacohen, MD, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, England, noted that the use of these more effective monoclonal antibody therapies in children with MS has been associated with some improvements in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores after 2 or 3 years of treatment.

Maybe this is a sign that “this is a population that can repair, in contrast to adult patients,” she wondered.

MS is primarily a disease of adults, but pediatric MS accounts for up to 5% of all cases. Children with MS tend to have much more active disease than adults, Dr. Hacohen explained. However, they also tend to recover from attacks more quickly with little disability, which sometimes causes diagnostic delays.

A pediatrician or family doctor will often dismiss pins and needles or blurred vision that only lasts a couple of days and won’t send the patient for an MRI, she said. But on MRI, pediatric patients with MS often have multiple lesions, even though they may have had very few symptoms. The EDSS may not change very much, but there can still be significant brain atrophy.

Over the past 20 years, there’s been an explosion of new disease-modifying treatments for MS, but these high-efficacy treatments, such as antibody therapies, are often not prescribed until the patient reaches the age of 18 years, both Dr. Sharmin and Dr. Hacohen pointed out.

“We need to get some of these medications approved for use in children,” Dr. Hacohen said.
 

Slowed Disability

In her presentation, Dr. Sharmin reported an observational study that included 282 patients younger than 18 years at MS onset identified from the French MS Registry, the Italian MS Register, and the Global MSBase Registry.

Of these, 110 (39%) had initiated therapy with ocrelizumab, rituximab, or natalizumab early in the disease course between ages 12 and 17 years and 172 (61%) had initiated treatment with one of these agents at ages 20-22 years.

The primary outcome was the difference in EDSS scores from baseline (at age 18 years) to ages 23-27 years between those who had started treatment with one of these agents early and those who had started late.

At the baseline of age 18 years, the median EDSS score was 1.5 in the early group and 1.3 in the late group. Median follow-up time was 10.8 years.

The data were adjusted for baseline differences in factors such as sex, age at symptom onset, time from onset to clinically definite MS, and the number of relapses (using inverse probability treatment weighting based on propensity scores).

Results showed that between ages 23 and 27 years, disability was a 0.57 step lower in the early group than in the late group. The mean absolute differences in EDSS from baseline were 0.40 in the early group and 0.95 in the late group. This benefit of early treatment persisted throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

The substantially lower risk of progressing to higher disability levels in the early treatment group was particularly evident in the moderate disability range, where further progression was reduced by up to 97%, Dr. Sharmin noted.

“Starting these highly effective therapies, before the onset of significant neurological impairments, appears crucial for preserving neurological function in children with relapsing-remitting MS over the long term,” she said.

These findings highlight the critical importance of early intervention in pediatric-onset MS, she concluded.

The researchers are planning further work to generate more evidence to support the proactive treatment of pediatric-onset MS, with a particular focus on assessing the long-term risks for immunosuppressive therapies in this population.
 

Ocrelizumab Experience in Children

Dr. Hacohen reported on a UK cohort of children with MS treated with ocrelizumab, with 66 patients having more than 12 months of follow-up. Of these, only four patients had relapses, and there was no evidence of disease activity in 94% patients.

“We’ve stopped doing relapse clinic because they really don’t relapse,” Dr. Hacohen reported.

“This has completely changed our practice in pediatric MS,” she said. Twice a year, patients come in to have pre-infusion bloods and clinical assessments and then return a month later for treatment.

“They only have to come to the hospital for 4 days a year, and the rest of the time, they can forget they have MS,” said Dr. Hacohen.

In terms of complications, one patient in the UK cohort developed enterovirus meningitis but recovered completely, and two patients had hypogammaglobulinemia and were changed to an extended interval or to a different agent.

Dr. Hacohen cautioned that hypogammaglobulinemia — a condition in which immunoglobulin levels are below normal — is “something that hypothetically we should maybe be more worried about in the pediatric population, particularly as these patients are more likely to be on anti-CD20 therapies for a much longer time.”

She said this complication tends to happen after about 4 or 5 years of treatment. “If we start seeing IgG levels dropping, we need to come up with a plan about extending the dosing interval. We need clinical trials to look at this.”

Dr. Hacohen also drew attention to the issue of vaccinations not being effective in patients on anti-CD20 antibody therapy, which could be a particular problem in children.

However, given that vaccinations do seem to be effective in patients taking natalizumab, pediatric patients with highly active disease could receive the drug for 3-6 months while receiving vaccines and then switched over to ocrelizumab, she said.

Giving natalizumab for such a short period is not believed to have a high risk of developing JCV antibodies, she added.

In another presentation, Brenda Banwell, MD, Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, reported new data from an early study (OPERETTA 1) with ocrelizumab in pediatric relapsing-remitting MS showing a safety profile similar to that observed in adults. The suggested dose is 300 mg for children under 35 kg and 600 mg for adults over 35 kg, administered every 24 weeks. These doses will be further investigated in the ongoing phase III OPERETTA 2 trial.

Dr. Sharmin received a postdoctoral fellowship from MS Australia. The OPERETTA studies were sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Banwell served as a consultant to Roche. Dr. Hacohen reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull. 

Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient. 

She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord. 

Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube. 

By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach. 

“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’ 

While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

The study of 206 denials in radiation oncology concluded that more than two-thirds were ultimately approved on appeal without changes, but often these approvals came only after costly delays that potentially compromised patient care.

Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.

‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
 

Barriers at Every Step

As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.

‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.

To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022. 

The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.

Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.

Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?

Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control. 

Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said. 

She views this as tragically shortsighted.

‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said. 

In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.

‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’

Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.

In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies. 

Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.

Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too. 

One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.

Then there is the burnout factor. 

Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait. 

‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.

Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.

‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.

The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”

Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients. 

But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’

She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.

Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.

Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’

But not all the stories end like this.

Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*

If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.

And her patient might be alive today.

‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”

*Correction,  10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull. 

Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient. 

She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord. 

Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube. 

By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach. 

“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’ 

While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

The study of 206 denials in radiation oncology concluded that more than two-thirds were ultimately approved on appeal without changes, but often these approvals came only after costly delays that potentially compromised patient care.

Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.

‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
 

Barriers at Every Step

As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.

‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.

To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022. 

The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.

Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.

Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?

Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control. 

Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said. 

She views this as tragically shortsighted.

‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said. 

In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.

‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’

Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.

In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies. 

Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.

Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too. 

One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.

Then there is the burnout factor. 

Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait. 

‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.

Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.

‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.

The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”

Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients. 

But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’

She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.

Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.

Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’

But not all the stories end like this.

Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*

If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.

And her patient might be alive today.

‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”

*Correction,  10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull. 

Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient. 

She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord. 

Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube. 

By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach. 

“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’ 

While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

The study of 206 denials in radiation oncology concluded that more than two-thirds were ultimately approved on appeal without changes, but often these approvals came only after costly delays that potentially compromised patient care.

Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.

‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
 

Barriers at Every Step

As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.

‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.

To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022. 

The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.

Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.

Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?

Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control. 

Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said. 

She views this as tragically shortsighted.

‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said. 

In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.

‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’

Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.

In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies. 

Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.

Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too. 

One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.

Then there is the burnout factor. 

Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait. 

‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.

Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.

‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.

The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”

Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients. 

But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’

She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.

Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.

Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’

But not all the stories end like this.

Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*

If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.

And her patient might be alive today.

‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”

*Correction,  10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.